This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
So primates appeared in west Africa, then evolved into Homo Sapiens over millions of years, and then and only then did they spread out? There were no migrations of Homo Habilis, Erectus, or hominids like Australopithecus?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.115.56 ( talk) 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I was very surprised to see not a single mention of RELIGION in the opening summation of HUMAN HISTORY. Surely even the most die hard atheist can appreciate the extremely integral role it has played in shaping us and our history. We should all know that the first book ever printed (an event which IS mentioned) was... a bible. Whether or not something is "real" will always be debated, and this article is not the proper place for such a debate. However, spirituality and the realm of the supernatural have always been near the core of what it means to be human, and its recognition CANNOT be ommitted from our history. - Lucas Davis, 5-21-07
I was very surprised to read that the first book vìever printed was the bible. Wasn't printing invented in China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campolongo ( talk • contribs) 09:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
This section is lopsided, eurocentric and outdated. Why does the 'Rise of Europe' begin with the crusades? Europe was a very peripheral region at the time. The crusades were succesful only because they exploited momentary weaknesses in the region. The Renaissance? According to modern scholarship Europe remained technologically backward even in the 18th century, right before the Industrial Revolution (eg Kenneth Pomeranz). For a short rticles on Wikipedia will tend to be pretty generic since its not possible to detail all the various POV's on somthing as large as World History. If you want to write about a particular author, you could create an article, like Fall of the Roman Empire, that lists multiple POVs on a particular theme. Or, write up the summary under the authors entry, or a book article. Just some thoughts. Stbalbach 05:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
RCSB: How about you rewrite the section in a way that you feel would be more balanced? -- ran ( talk) 15:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Stbalbach and Ran: OK let's try it. To rewrite the article in the way I envision it would be a mammoth project. However, I think we can make some changes and additions and then later on, as you suggested, link to a wider main article. I hope to soon contribute to this. RCSB 18:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I have added three paragraphs which I think help to present a more balanced narrative. I have tried to steer a middle course between old-school eurocentrism and views such as those of Pomeranz. In future I think this seciton should be divided into two expanded sections: before 1750 and after 1750. RCSB 10:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
SimonP: I cannot agree with your latest edit (in which you overran some of my work). You write very well, but you have diluted the message I tried to present: domination of the seas does not necessarily mean a more advanced society. The Mongols dominated the Eurasian steppe, but were less advanced than the societies they conquered. The period in which Europe rose to become the leading world centre has continually been pushed forward by scholars. I notice you are keen on geographical determinism. So why not expand on Pomeranz? His thesis is quintessential geographic determinism. I do not agree with his explanations, but I do accept that the Euorpean economy was not ahead of China's before 1750. I added an important link on this matter which you have regrettably removed.
But the important message is this: World history has to be presented as global history. The Industrial Revolution is not a European phenomenon. It is a Eurasian one. The basis for the Industrial Revolution was a millennium of continuous technological advance, most of which occurred in China. It is not enough to remind readers that Europe was a peripheral region "during its Middle Ages". Rather, a balanced presentation would paint a picture of a millennium of Eurasian advance, during which China in the 12th century came very close to an industrial revolution of its own. Europe pressed forward during the 'Age of Discovery' not because it was more advanced but for precisely the opposite reason. It was in need of the superior products that the rest of Eurasia could offer. This is very reminiscent of the Mongol onslaught. But then began a process in which it could leverage its position in world trade in order to accumulate capital and wealth which enabled the Industrial Revolution. RCSB 19:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
RCSB - can you please detail, in actionable terms, the reasons for the "totally disputed" tag? Such tags should not be abused, they are usually used when communications break down between editors, and should not be used to express a disagrement. Rather, editing of the article is the correct and first choice. There are multiple POV's on this subject, it is possible to present all those multiple POV's in a neutral, factual manner without the need for a disputed tag. Stbalbach 22:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree that the European difference started with territorial expansion. The crusades can be compared with the Arab expansion throughout the centuries and with other great civilizations, like Tang China, the Mongolians etc. Typical for the Portugeese and the Spanish is that they were the first to explore the entire earth and establish lasting empires.-- Daanschr 09:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I found a weblog dealing with the problem. I think it is useful in this discussion. I will try to find more information. [1]-- Daanschr 16:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I followed a course on European expansion. It appeared that some Dutch people tried to help the king of Thailand to build up a modern navy. It was very hard to modernize. Many materials were (like ropes) had to come from afar. The enterprise was no succes. A good question is why other countries didn't take over the European advantages. The Portugeese dominated the Indian Ocean since 1500. Industrial revolution wasn't a succes in many parts of the world. Take present Africa for example.-- Daanschr 16:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I meant that Southern India and South-East-Asia were more militant and had better military tactics then Northern India and China. The example of Thailand was about the difficulty for civilizations to take over eachothers advances.-- Daanschr 19:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Daanscher - You mention Africa as an example of where the industrial revolution failed. But that isn't because no one ever tried to industrialize the region. The reason actually has everything to do with European expansion. Taking a leaf from Jared Diamond, most of Africa was more or less isolated from the achievements made by the foreign world roughly after the fall of the Kings of Mali. Even before then, foreign advancements were never replicated in the African kingdoms, as was the case in the Eurasian countries. This meant that the people in Africa would be forever in a technological rut unless a major change took place. Unfortunately that change was as brutal as Imperialism came to be. But the reason that Africa has never properly undergone the Industrial Revolution is that it wasn’t fully colonized. The reason that Africa is (and this is a rather unfair but sadly realistic) such a horrid place is not because Imperialism came, but because it left too quickly. Had the European powers left their former colonies with at least a semblance of an infrastructure, and in the hands of able and trust worthy leaders, like in India, then the modern day countries likely have more of a future.
This section seems to be very biased towards a pro-globalisation, pro-western, pro-libertarian view. I'm about to remove the most obvious ones, the description of the LEague of Nations and UN as 'feeble', but I don't think I'm able to re-do the rest, it would probably require more knowledge than I have. - User:Dalta / 83.70.229.225 22:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
"Socialists and American liberals believed (and continue to believe) that the society is, in large part, responsible for the behaviour of its citizens and that the society should be changed in order to make the world better. American Conservatives, European liberals, and all Libertarians believed (and continue to believe) in freedom and market forces and want individuals to take responsibility for themselves and hold that a society should guarantee freedom in order for individuals to develop fully. Christians, regardless of political ideology, believe that the individual's relation to their Church and/or God is the critical factor in a satisfactory life. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and other religions have religious concepts of their own."
Seems simply bizarre. It's political science, not history, for a start. It also states some strange things - surely every ideology claims to be in favour of "freedom". "Socialist" isn't even a well-defined term, as it can describe anyone from a Stalinist to a Prodhounist (Prodhounists favour an individualist market socialism). Tito implemented a collective market socialism with little individual freedom. The "other religions have..." statement isn't exactly suitable for an encyclopedia. My guess is that this was written by an American conservative Christian. Regardless, none of this has much to do with history.
"Today the welfare state is unpopular because it withholds economical progress due to inefficient investments."
The first part of this statement may be true wherever the writer happens to live. It isn't where I live (Scotland). The latter part is a political opinion, best reserved for full reasoned debate in the economics section of wikipedia.
"It [Communism] led to genocide and substantial poverty, and was widely viewed as unsuccessful. Soviet and Chinese leaders and intellectuals discovered that the 'western' style of production with self-responsibility led to continuing progress, while the communist societies were in a continuous economic depression, so they were forced to become capitalistic."
Is poor analysis showing little knowledge of history. Certainly there was genocide in Russia and China, but not to my knowledge in Yugoslavia, Cuba, Poland, or any of many other countries that were considered communist at one time or another. The USSR was not in continuous economic depression- it was a superpower, how do you get that way with 80 years of economic depression?!? I'm no Soviet expert, but their economy definitely grew until the 50s or 60s (obviously WW2 took them back a few steps). It was definitely in depression by the mid to late 80s and continued to be well into the 90s. China is not the same economically as it was under Mao, but it has also not adopted true American/Western European style capitalism either.
I'm quite new to editing wikipedia, so I don't want to just change this section too radically withot prior discussion. However, it seems to me that the best thing would be a ground-up rewrite. Much of the content of this section is badly written and the rest is innacurate or biased. I would suggest that some alternative structure needs to be found, instead of lumping so many disparate things (decolonisation, the fall of the USSR, globalisation, communist revoution, social democratic ideology) in one incoherent section. ADavidson 05:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This article did not go through the current GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards in that it does not cite sources. Most Good Articles use inline citations. In addition the lead section is too short. I would recommend that these be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. -- RelHistBuff 09:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This current final section of the article seems an excessively detailed discussion of philosophical concepts, grafted onto a brief outline of the history of the world. Perhaps the contents of " Globalization and westernization" could be developed as a separate article or merged with existing articles, and " History of the world" closed with " Ascendance through technology"? logologist| Talk 09:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
An editor has requested a source for this assertion in the lead. Encyclopedia Americana states: "[H]istory is the memory [of the past experience of mankind] as it has been preserved, largely in written records. In the usual sense, history is the product of historians' work in reconstructing the flow of events from the original written traces or 'sources' into a narrative account. The existence of written records distinguishes the historic era from prehistoric times, known only through the researches of archaeology." logologist| Talk 16:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I used the cut and paste procedure to make an archive of discussions older than August 2006 (ish). Xaxafrad 04:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
IMO, the lack of in-line references is the biggest obstacle between this article and a good/great/featured article. I guess the easiest solution would be to copy references from other articles. Xaxafrad 04:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The footnote 'system' is a joke, isn't it? Why can't we do it here the same way as elsewhere at Wikipedia? With such a complicated footnote system one can't seriously expect people to make contributions. Regards Gun Powder Ma 02:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I marked two assertion in "Background to European advance" as dubious as I find them pretty sweeping statements. Is there a scholarly consensus that China was the "most urbanized" and "technologically advanced country" of "Eurasia" then? I am not aware of that, unless one wants to portrait the opinion of a handful of World System authors plus a "Joseph Needham always ready to inflate Chinese achievements" (Quote Robert Finlay) as defining an international consensus of scholars here. In particular, I wonder what parameters underlie such a verdict and what empirical material on whole "Eurasia" has been collected to come to such a conclusion.
If sweeping comments like that were made in a European context, they would be rightly castigated "Eurocentrism", so I don't hope we are coming out of the frying pan into the fire. Regards Gun Powder Ma 02:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Your statement is noted. I agree with you as well. Furthermore, this article seems to have heavly politically "liberal" statements and a general left wing view, especially at the last paragraph. 66.91.119.183 11:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree D prime 15:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The line about the population bottleneck occurring is not widely accepted in the scientific community. I think the line should begin with 'It is contended that...' or 'It is theorized that...' or something like that. I don't have any original sources to support my claim, but these articles do support me- Toba catastrophe theory and Population bottleneck. -- 64.131.213.198 07:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Attempt to clean it up ... http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=History_of_the_world&oldid=135404807'
Reversion by Nihil novi ( talk · contribs) ... http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=History_of_the_world&diff=135420102&oldid=135404807
The history of the world is human history (as opposed to prehistory [1]) that is marked throughout the globe by a gradual accretion of discoveries and inventions, as well as by quantum leaps — paradigm shifts, and revolutions — that comprise epochs in the material and spiritual evolution of humankind. After humans left the " Cradle of Humanity", humans had colonized nearly all the ice-free parts of the globe and developed in several regions various systems of writing and unique social systems.
World history, which examines history from a global perspective, looks to the invention of writing as the key component that gave rise to civilization, i.e., to permanent settled communities which fostered a growing diversity of trades. [2] This invention created the infrastructure for lasting, accurately transmitted memories and thus the capability for the diffusion and growth of knowledge. [2] There are various written accounts of languages developing. The early writing systems were not a sudden invention. They were rather based on ancient traditions of symbol systems that cannot be classified as writing proper, but have many characteristics strikingly reminiscent of writing, so that they may be described as proto-writing. The independent invention of writing at several sites on Earth allow various regions to claim to be a cradle of civilization. The various writing styles, in turn, had been made necessary in the wake of the Agricultural Revolution.
The scattered habitations, centered about life-sustaining bodies of water — rivers and lakes — coalesced over time into ever larger units, in parallel with the evolution of ever more efficient means of transport. These processes of coalescence, spurred by rivalries and conflicts between adjacent communities, gave rise over millenia to ever larger states, and then to superstates ( empires). The fall of the Roman Empire in Europe at the end of antiquity signalled the beginning of the Middle Ages.
In the mid-15th century, Johannes Gutenberg's invention of modern printing, employing movable type, revolutionized communication, helping end the Middle Ages and usher in modern times, the European Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution. By the 18th century, the accumulation of knowledge and technology, especially in Europe, had reached a critical mass that sparked into existence the Industrial Revolution. Over the quarter- millennium since, knowledge, technology, commerce, and — concomitantly with these — war have accelerated at a geometric rate, creating the opportunities and perils that now confront the human communities that together inhabit a planet of scarce resources.
J. D. Redding 23:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The global communications network? Isn't this an important advance? Why is it not even mentioned? The ability of the world to mass-communicate... the fact that I can pick up the phone and talk to someone on the other side of the planet, instantaneously, has got to be worthy of mentioning in a history of the world. It's changed the world forever and has arguably led to globalisation, which is mentioned. 212.139.167.196 22:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
the preposterous amount of links on the page it is not funny, it's hard to read for average readers.
("?") Markthemac 09:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with you, especially in the suggestion that this article is hard to read for 'average readers'. I found it quite legible and very informative. In addition, the number of links is quite right, really. Just Another Fat Guy 21:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
i don't mean the content i mean the layout, it's not working.
Markthemac
18:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
This article should be called History of Human Existence or History of Humans or something like that. To be so biased as to say that only history concerning human beings is relevant to the history of the world is simply rude. We violate the neutral point of view Wikipedia should hold by starting the History of the World at any time other than when the world was first formed. The world was around before we were and it could be around a lot longer. If we really are going to have a History of the World article than it needs to cover the histories of geology, animals, humans, and everything concerning what happens on the earth. I sincerely hope that we can not just say "Oh, oops, this basically means the history of human existence" in the beginning and say that works for the article to be something other than what it is. If we go by the reasoning of "History starts with writing" then we should take out everything up to a few thousand B.C. being that it is conjectural.-- 76.23.84.86 20:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Although I really must thank whomever put the disambiguation stuff at the top I still think that this article should be retitled as its title is inaccurate. The proper name would be something like Human History or History of Human Existence. -- 76.23.84.86 23:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Definitions and semantics... history means (to me) RECORDED events, which would (to me) necessarily indicate human events(animals don't record anything). Also "the world" indicates (to me) the realm of human experience (which differs from "the earth", the physical rock/dirt/water sphere humans, animals, and plants all inhabit)... meaning that (again... TO ME) "history of the world" is an entirely appropriate title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.97.80.100 ( talk) 09:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Disagree Even if someone was confused about the semantics involved, the introduction quickly and simply explains what this page is about, and where to go if you were more interested, for instance, in the geological life of the planet. Macduffman ( talk) 18:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Although the second half of this section seems good, the first half (about politics, basically) badly needed a rewrite and some addition. I did it, but it may not be up to snuff. I tried to provide an unbiased, balanced interpretation, but with something so broad and eventful there will certainly be other ones. Also, it needs some more addition - for instance, on the rise of East Asia, the turmoil in West Asia after the Osmanlis' downfall, and maybe some short blurbs on the progress of individual nations, at least the pivotal ones (Germany, America, Japan, the USSR, India, China, Israel). I also think more needs to be said on postcolonial Africa and Asia and Latin America during this era, but I'm no expert there. Brutannica 20:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to show a World War II map instead of a World War I one? WWII was more important, after all, and involved more of the world. Brutannica 05:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I pulled a lot of questionable content from recent history, and reworded much of the remainder to be more concise and neutral.
This is unreferenced and may be original. If not, it would be an interesting claim to add somewhere. It does not seem like a good introduction to the formation of the EU, since that implies causality, and that's an even stronger unreferenced claim which is potentially controversial or original.
These threats are not new, and do not need to be sensationalized in this way.
This seems to dwell excessively on global warming. The "Planetary Phase of Civilization" is a concept from a single working group, and a single global warming report does not really merit mentioning at the level of world history. The last sentence is overly broad and dramatic.
This is interesting and all, but the first half does not take place in the 20th Century, and so it doesn't seem to belong in that section. The second half seems to be speculative.
-- Beland 05:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
There is confusion between History of Earth and this article. If the present article is only about human societies in history, the title should reflect that. Why not move this to History of Humans or Human History? -- Antonio.sierra 18:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This paragraph said the eruption had global effects, "killing off as many as 59 million people". However, I couldn't find this figure of 59 million anywhere else. I have no idea where it comes from. It's an absurdly high number because no earlier than 1000 BCE did the human population reach 50 million souls. I replaced this obviously erroneous figure with the reliable information that can be found in the Toba catastrophe theory article. Zonder 02:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that 9/11 should be mentioned in thae article as it was a major event in world history. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' ( talk) 00:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, considering all that is involved in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF HUMANITY, 9/11 is a rather insignificant event. Guttenberg's printing press, the two World Wars, and The Internet are major events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.97.80.100 ( talk) 10:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
this being the article on the "history of the world", the 20th century is given much too much weight. Also, the ToC organisation is questionable: it begins with classical periodization, Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, but then breaks off and turns into a topical list. You would expect it to continue along the lines of Bronze Age, Iron Age, Classical Antiquity, Middle Ages, Early Modern period and finally sections on the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. dab (𒁳) 15:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I've dealt with your first concern... let me know if you think I've gone far enough or too far. The article does need a rewrite, although that many divisions is unnecessary and I don't think we should keep a strict chronology as it limits flow. It just needs a bit of reorganising and renaming of section titles. As a starter, Rise of Europe should be merged with Age of Discovery, removing all the opinions about why or how Europe "rose" - just state what happened, and leave why for another article. I'll do it unless somebody beats me to it... Corleonebrother ( talk) 21:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing the phrase "of necessity" in the sentence "Civilizations, of necessity, developed on the banks of rivers."
It just doesn't fit. It's not neutral, and looks like some kind of biased vandalism. Who are we to say that the civilizations they developed were absolutely necessary. If someone puts it back, I'm going to ask that person to cite a reference. 66.69.194.16 ( talk) 05:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I placed a {{ fact}} tag on the intro's claim that ".... war ... increasing at a geometric rate".
From the War article, we read that "The Human Security Report 2005 has documented a significant decline in the number and severity of armed conflicts since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s." So if there ever was a geometric increase, it seems to have been broken. Unless someone has documentation, I suggest we delete war from the intro. -- Alvestrand 21:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
not simply wars in general but the potential for their destructiveness, i.e. with new technology such as the atom bomb comes safeguards and dangers, or the internet, etc. 70.160.102.251 ( talk) 02:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Rodiggidy
I made a correction to the following statement, changing " greenhouse effect" to " global climate change":
The greenhouse effect is not a problem in and of itself, it is completely natural and vital to regulating the Earth's temperature such that it is not too cold or hot to support life. It is also not new in the 20th century. The important, problematic issue is actually human-caused global climate change. MarcusMaximus ( talk) 08:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I also added a "citation needed" to this statement about dwindling global resources.
It is not obvious that any particular global resources are about to run out, or are in danger of doing so in the near future. For that reason I believe a citation is in order, with some specific examples of dwindling resources and empirical numbers that can accurately project when they are going to run out. MarcusMaximus ( talk) 08:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The 21st century section reads like the movie trailer for the end of the world, focusing exclusively on highly negative or marginally neutral issues, like resource depletion, economic conflicts, wars, famines, and overall death and destruction. I removed some of the overly dramatic narration, but it needs a serious overhaul. Maybe a few of the positive developments of the 21st century should be added, considering that the world's overall standard of living is near its all time high, and economic and political freedom has never been as expansive throughout most of the world as it is now. It could start with the increased availability of technology to new countries and formerly impoverished populations, the information boom, the relatively healthy economy for the first 8 years of the century, promising new medical procedures to treat formerly untreatable diseases, etc. In addition, the idea stated in the first sentence about "increased environmental degradation" is debatable, as well as any claims of historically high levels of violence. MarcusMaximus ( talk) 04:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
A fair portion of the article is dedicated to prehistory and there have been some objections to this. I do think covering pre-history in this article is appropriate, as we discussed early in this article's creation at Talk:History_of_the_world/Archive_1#Prehistory.3F. See also our own article at History#History_and_prehistory. What we should perhaps think about is changing the lead to better reflect this. - SimonP ( talk) 13:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Fifelfoo ( talk) 04:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
After reading this section it struck me as very odd that our predictions about the 21st centuary are talked about the past tense, as if they have/will come true. In my opinion speculation about the future of the world does not belong in an article named "History of the world".
The following sentence seemed like a blatant case of NPOV and weasel words:
I reworded it in a more neutral fashion while trying to retain the meaning:
MarcusMaximus ( talk) 08:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This edit was reverted by the user
User:Nihil novi without any particular explanation or defense against my charges of
NPOV and
weasel words.
Specifically,
Unless you can address these issues, stop reverting my edits. MarcusMaximus ( talk) 06:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
"Your substituted version, on the other hand, suggests less urgency and more of a sense of business-as-usual."
That is precisely the point. Wikipedia is not an advocacy forum. Its purpose is to convey facts, and the reader decides if those facts require urgent action. If you want to convey factual information about the quantity of particular resources remaining and their projected exhaustion, that is fine, please do so. If you are merely going to state, in figurative terms, that we are "fast becoming lodged in a historic bottleneck", that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. How fast is fast? How significant is something before it becomes "historic"? How certain is this event to occur? And how is any of this conjecture relevant to an article about world history?
Petroleum has been projected to be exhausted "within a few decades" for many decades now, and there is more of it discovered all the time. If you are stating this as a fact, you will need a very good set of sources. On the other hand, a neutral mention of the fact that alternative sources of energy are growing in popularity and being researched would be a fine addition to this section.
By the way, you didn't address the weasel words issue. "Fast becoming apparent" to whom? MarcusMaximus ( talk) 08:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
That was a rhetorical question. The point is, you are not supposed to use that kind of phrasing. State facts. MarcusMaximus ( talk) 07:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
~~ ~~Just a pass-by viewer of the page here. I am aware this is not an advocacy board, but since the 20th and 21st century mention a number of known social ills, perhaps the 21st century should include a mention obesity as a rising health/environmental issue and link to the obesity page. I mean, this is the first time in human history where too much food rather than too little is a health problem on a global scale. source: http://www.nfb.ca/film/weight_of_the_world/ ~~ ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.104.104 ( talk) 19:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
This section appears to be nonsense and should be removed from the article. Jleonunez ( talk) 06:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Why does it talk about "Temple establishments" and the " New Kingdom of Egypt" and THEN have the next section title be "Early civilization", then talk about Cities, THEN say all of that is before "Ancient history", and then start talking about religion and civilization again?-- 98.114.243.75 ( talk) 00:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
To speak of the Age of Reason leading to the Scientific Revolution, and simultaneously to the Industrial Revolution, in the 19th century, is grossly inaccurate. The Age of Reason began in the 17th century; the Scientific Revolution — in the 16th, with Copernicus; and the Industrial Revolution, in the 18th century. Nihil novi ( talk) 13:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
From the "History of the World" article:
From the "Recorded History" article:
Anyone else find the above passages unclear and problematic? What exactly is the difference between the two?
During the Industrial Revolution, the world economy became reliant on coal as a fuel, as new methods of transport, such as railways and steamships, effectively shrank the world. Meanwhile, industrial pollution and environmental damage, present since the discovery of fire and the beginning of civilization, accelerated drastically.
This sentence suggests that there were no wood burnt on the earth until mankind discovers fire, kinda silly imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.230.33 ( talk) 06:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see what challenges the principle of neutrality here. The article doesn't say whether democracy has a positive or negative effect, just that it has an effect. Few reasonable people could deny this, I think. 86.7.216.182 ( talk) 22:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
True. It has an effect. Should be removed. -- J. D. Redding 03:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Article is written with a purely eurocentric POV of history. Most civilizations get secondplay and marginal treatment while others like the Chinese and African history get uncomfortably fitted into European history periods like the "middle ages", a concept alien to any culture outside Europe (and even then limited to the European parts of the Western Roman Empire), then anything outside Europe is threated as "provincial history". All before 1492 in this article is but a sideshow for what the eurocentrists consider the most important historical happening, the socalled "rise of Europe", that they consider starts from 1492 and culminates in the the XIX century. The sections that go from Middle ages to 1945 ares just Europe,Europe and more Europe.
A history of the world as a whole, and not just an Eurocentric Panegyric must put facts that affected the whole world or most of it like climate changes, and economic developments. Andres rojas22 ( talk) 02:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
John Atkinson Hobson? ... hmmm .... a POV [cited] /the authors seem related, seriously =-], do you know if they are?/... add counterviews if you included some of his writings, or similar ... it would seem to me to be necessary to do so. Source has a strong POV.
Anyways, History is history. The Imperial era of Chinese history last from 221 BC - AD 1912 ... static. Be nice to find references about east west interaction though ... I think you are talking about early modern period and maybe alittle before. Maybe? The mention of Mohammad should be in section (like the axial age) should be included, briefly ... and with other great figures of the timespan. The initial expansion of Islam wasn't as important as the second wave, JIMO. -- J. D. Redding 05:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
John M. Hobson its his son. Again read the book, it would challenge your conception, still dont understand what do you mean about the history of China being static and how do you base that claim.-- Andres rojas22 ( talk) 08:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Why are the pre-19th-century Age of Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution discussed under " 19th century"? Nihil novi ( talk) 07:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
footnote 129. The Age of Enlightenment has also been referred to as the Age of Reason. Historians also include the late 17th century, which is typically known as the Age of Reason or Age of Rationalism, as part of the Enlightenment; however, contemporary historians have considered the Age of Reason distinct to the ideas developed in the Enlightenment. The use of the term here includes both Ages under a single all-inclusive time-frame.
... this "lead to the Scientific Revolution" ... and ends as late as the beginning of the Napoleonic Wars (1804–15).
-- J. D. Redding 13:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I see the problem ... took out the "19th century" header. Better now? -- J. D. Redding 04:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC) [don't know what i was thinking ... or i wasn't thinking. Thanks. Corrected it now ... ]
I think it's good we have a timeline, like the one in the Antiquity section, but I think we should remove the top line (Bronze Age, Iron Age, Middle Ages). These three "ages" directly apply only to Europe and the Near East. Besides, it doesn't follow the chronology in the article, where Antiquity follows the Iron Age. 70.179.92.117 ( talk) 03:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The grouping of history into antiquity, middle ages, modern ages seems irrelevant and misleading. The lines in truth are not so clearly drawn, and calling all Europe after the Renaissance "Early Modern" likewise limits the experience of the 17th-20th centuries. Similarly by getting rid of these silly headings, we could eradicate accusations of "eurocentrism." The movement I think will be more powerful and true, if the chronology proceeds more fragmentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.52.161 ( talk) 13:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
J. D. Redding 04:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This isn't the only place where this confusion exists. You don't have civilization in the archaeological sense without cities, that's one of the key defining characteristics of a civilization. Dougweller ( talk) 07:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I found the start of this article remarkably abrupt, and not consistent with WP:LEAD. I checked the history, and lo and behold, the article used to have a good lead paragraph, which had been removed with the comment that the article should be a history of the world, not an article about the topic "the history of the world". This seemed a misguided argument, so I re-instated the lead paragraph. -- Slashme ( talk) 14:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I suppose it should be expected that such a broad overview would mischaracterize a lot of traditions. But it's surprising that such simple factual problems are glossed over as the founding dates for traditions.
Shouldn't this article be moved to Human History (now a redirect to this article)? This is a fantastic article, but it's not about the history of the Earth, or even of Life. It's about the history of humans, so that's where it should go. I would do this myself but a) I wanted to get some other opinions first, and b) Human History already exists as redirect to this article, so an admin is needed to delete that before this can be moved. Thoughts? ☻☻☻ Sithman VIII ! !☻☻☻ 08:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Human History ... Human history. Human History should be redirected to Recorded history, JIMO ... or {{ disambig}} it. -- J. D. Redding 04:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 19:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
History of the world → Human history –
Be helpful to get some points to work on ... -- J. D. Redding 07:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
This article is incomplete and may require expansion or cleanup. Please list specific bulleted points here. -- J. D. Redding 07:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC) [ps., The #History of Ideas inaccuracies above is noted]
The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please list specific bulleted points here. -- J. D. Redding 07:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Sumerian 26th c Adab.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
Oceania, Sub-Saharan Africa, Russia, and North America are completely absent from the pre-Modern history sections of the article. I think a couple of sentences about the early Polynesians, Inuit, etc, added somewhere, would be helpful. -- Yair rand ( talk) 00:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
User:Hadseys made an epic contribution to the article, but I reverted it because it was too long. The current article is 90KB (which maybe should be brought down to about 50KB) and their contribution was 800KB.
Judging solely from a quick skim of his content, there seems to be a lot of good stuff there, which could possibly be merged into the article (once it is properly sourced, of course).
It would greatly be appreciated if some of the editors of this article could look over User:Hadseys's contribution and incorporate as much as possible into the article, so all the hard work does not go to waste.
Thanks, Matt ( talk) 01:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
So primates appeared in west Africa, then evolved into Homo Sapiens over millions of years, and then and only then did they spread out? There were no migrations of Homo Habilis, Erectus, or hominids like Australopithecus?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.115.56 ( talk) 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I was very surprised to see not a single mention of RELIGION in the opening summation of HUMAN HISTORY. Surely even the most die hard atheist can appreciate the extremely integral role it has played in shaping us and our history. We should all know that the first book ever printed (an event which IS mentioned) was... a bible. Whether or not something is "real" will always be debated, and this article is not the proper place for such a debate. However, spirituality and the realm of the supernatural have always been near the core of what it means to be human, and its recognition CANNOT be ommitted from our history. - Lucas Davis, 5-21-07
I was very surprised to read that the first book vìever printed was the bible. Wasn't printing invented in China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campolongo ( talk • contribs) 09:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
This section is lopsided, eurocentric and outdated. Why does the 'Rise of Europe' begin with the crusades? Europe was a very peripheral region at the time. The crusades were succesful only because they exploited momentary weaknesses in the region. The Renaissance? According to modern scholarship Europe remained technologically backward even in the 18th century, right before the Industrial Revolution (eg Kenneth Pomeranz). For a short rticles on Wikipedia will tend to be pretty generic since its not possible to detail all the various POV's on somthing as large as World History. If you want to write about a particular author, you could create an article, like Fall of the Roman Empire, that lists multiple POVs on a particular theme. Or, write up the summary under the authors entry, or a book article. Just some thoughts. Stbalbach 05:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
RCSB: How about you rewrite the section in a way that you feel would be more balanced? -- ran ( talk) 15:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Stbalbach and Ran: OK let's try it. To rewrite the article in the way I envision it would be a mammoth project. However, I think we can make some changes and additions and then later on, as you suggested, link to a wider main article. I hope to soon contribute to this. RCSB 18:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I have added three paragraphs which I think help to present a more balanced narrative. I have tried to steer a middle course between old-school eurocentrism and views such as those of Pomeranz. In future I think this seciton should be divided into two expanded sections: before 1750 and after 1750. RCSB 10:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
SimonP: I cannot agree with your latest edit (in which you overran some of my work). You write very well, but you have diluted the message I tried to present: domination of the seas does not necessarily mean a more advanced society. The Mongols dominated the Eurasian steppe, but were less advanced than the societies they conquered. The period in which Europe rose to become the leading world centre has continually been pushed forward by scholars. I notice you are keen on geographical determinism. So why not expand on Pomeranz? His thesis is quintessential geographic determinism. I do not agree with his explanations, but I do accept that the Euorpean economy was not ahead of China's before 1750. I added an important link on this matter which you have regrettably removed.
But the important message is this: World history has to be presented as global history. The Industrial Revolution is not a European phenomenon. It is a Eurasian one. The basis for the Industrial Revolution was a millennium of continuous technological advance, most of which occurred in China. It is not enough to remind readers that Europe was a peripheral region "during its Middle Ages". Rather, a balanced presentation would paint a picture of a millennium of Eurasian advance, during which China in the 12th century came very close to an industrial revolution of its own. Europe pressed forward during the 'Age of Discovery' not because it was more advanced but for precisely the opposite reason. It was in need of the superior products that the rest of Eurasia could offer. This is very reminiscent of the Mongol onslaught. But then began a process in which it could leverage its position in world trade in order to accumulate capital and wealth which enabled the Industrial Revolution. RCSB 19:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
RCSB - can you please detail, in actionable terms, the reasons for the "totally disputed" tag? Such tags should not be abused, they are usually used when communications break down between editors, and should not be used to express a disagrement. Rather, editing of the article is the correct and first choice. There are multiple POV's on this subject, it is possible to present all those multiple POV's in a neutral, factual manner without the need for a disputed tag. Stbalbach 22:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree that the European difference started with territorial expansion. The crusades can be compared with the Arab expansion throughout the centuries and with other great civilizations, like Tang China, the Mongolians etc. Typical for the Portugeese and the Spanish is that they were the first to explore the entire earth and establish lasting empires.-- Daanschr 09:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I found a weblog dealing with the problem. I think it is useful in this discussion. I will try to find more information. [1]-- Daanschr 16:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I followed a course on European expansion. It appeared that some Dutch people tried to help the king of Thailand to build up a modern navy. It was very hard to modernize. Many materials were (like ropes) had to come from afar. The enterprise was no succes. A good question is why other countries didn't take over the European advantages. The Portugeese dominated the Indian Ocean since 1500. Industrial revolution wasn't a succes in many parts of the world. Take present Africa for example.-- Daanschr 16:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I meant that Southern India and South-East-Asia were more militant and had better military tactics then Northern India and China. The example of Thailand was about the difficulty for civilizations to take over eachothers advances.-- Daanschr 19:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Daanscher - You mention Africa as an example of where the industrial revolution failed. But that isn't because no one ever tried to industrialize the region. The reason actually has everything to do with European expansion. Taking a leaf from Jared Diamond, most of Africa was more or less isolated from the achievements made by the foreign world roughly after the fall of the Kings of Mali. Even before then, foreign advancements were never replicated in the African kingdoms, as was the case in the Eurasian countries. This meant that the people in Africa would be forever in a technological rut unless a major change took place. Unfortunately that change was as brutal as Imperialism came to be. But the reason that Africa has never properly undergone the Industrial Revolution is that it wasn’t fully colonized. The reason that Africa is (and this is a rather unfair but sadly realistic) such a horrid place is not because Imperialism came, but because it left too quickly. Had the European powers left their former colonies with at least a semblance of an infrastructure, and in the hands of able and trust worthy leaders, like in India, then the modern day countries likely have more of a future.
This section seems to be very biased towards a pro-globalisation, pro-western, pro-libertarian view. I'm about to remove the most obvious ones, the description of the LEague of Nations and UN as 'feeble', but I don't think I'm able to re-do the rest, it would probably require more knowledge than I have. - User:Dalta / 83.70.229.225 22:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
"Socialists and American liberals believed (and continue to believe) that the society is, in large part, responsible for the behaviour of its citizens and that the society should be changed in order to make the world better. American Conservatives, European liberals, and all Libertarians believed (and continue to believe) in freedom and market forces and want individuals to take responsibility for themselves and hold that a society should guarantee freedom in order for individuals to develop fully. Christians, regardless of political ideology, believe that the individual's relation to their Church and/or God is the critical factor in a satisfactory life. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and other religions have religious concepts of their own."
Seems simply bizarre. It's political science, not history, for a start. It also states some strange things - surely every ideology claims to be in favour of "freedom". "Socialist" isn't even a well-defined term, as it can describe anyone from a Stalinist to a Prodhounist (Prodhounists favour an individualist market socialism). Tito implemented a collective market socialism with little individual freedom. The "other religions have..." statement isn't exactly suitable for an encyclopedia. My guess is that this was written by an American conservative Christian. Regardless, none of this has much to do with history.
"Today the welfare state is unpopular because it withholds economical progress due to inefficient investments."
The first part of this statement may be true wherever the writer happens to live. It isn't where I live (Scotland). The latter part is a political opinion, best reserved for full reasoned debate in the economics section of wikipedia.
"It [Communism] led to genocide and substantial poverty, and was widely viewed as unsuccessful. Soviet and Chinese leaders and intellectuals discovered that the 'western' style of production with self-responsibility led to continuing progress, while the communist societies were in a continuous economic depression, so they were forced to become capitalistic."
Is poor analysis showing little knowledge of history. Certainly there was genocide in Russia and China, but not to my knowledge in Yugoslavia, Cuba, Poland, or any of many other countries that were considered communist at one time or another. The USSR was not in continuous economic depression- it was a superpower, how do you get that way with 80 years of economic depression?!? I'm no Soviet expert, but their economy definitely grew until the 50s or 60s (obviously WW2 took them back a few steps). It was definitely in depression by the mid to late 80s and continued to be well into the 90s. China is not the same economically as it was under Mao, but it has also not adopted true American/Western European style capitalism either.
I'm quite new to editing wikipedia, so I don't want to just change this section too radically withot prior discussion. However, it seems to me that the best thing would be a ground-up rewrite. Much of the content of this section is badly written and the rest is innacurate or biased. I would suggest that some alternative structure needs to be found, instead of lumping so many disparate things (decolonisation, the fall of the USSR, globalisation, communist revoution, social democratic ideology) in one incoherent section. ADavidson 05:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This article did not go through the current GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards in that it does not cite sources. Most Good Articles use inline citations. In addition the lead section is too short. I would recommend that these be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. -- RelHistBuff 09:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This current final section of the article seems an excessively detailed discussion of philosophical concepts, grafted onto a brief outline of the history of the world. Perhaps the contents of " Globalization and westernization" could be developed as a separate article or merged with existing articles, and " History of the world" closed with " Ascendance through technology"? logologist| Talk 09:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
An editor has requested a source for this assertion in the lead. Encyclopedia Americana states: "[H]istory is the memory [of the past experience of mankind] as it has been preserved, largely in written records. In the usual sense, history is the product of historians' work in reconstructing the flow of events from the original written traces or 'sources' into a narrative account. The existence of written records distinguishes the historic era from prehistoric times, known only through the researches of archaeology." logologist| Talk 16:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I used the cut and paste procedure to make an archive of discussions older than August 2006 (ish). Xaxafrad 04:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
IMO, the lack of in-line references is the biggest obstacle between this article and a good/great/featured article. I guess the easiest solution would be to copy references from other articles. Xaxafrad 04:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The footnote 'system' is a joke, isn't it? Why can't we do it here the same way as elsewhere at Wikipedia? With such a complicated footnote system one can't seriously expect people to make contributions. Regards Gun Powder Ma 02:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I marked two assertion in "Background to European advance" as dubious as I find them pretty sweeping statements. Is there a scholarly consensus that China was the "most urbanized" and "technologically advanced country" of "Eurasia" then? I am not aware of that, unless one wants to portrait the opinion of a handful of World System authors plus a "Joseph Needham always ready to inflate Chinese achievements" (Quote Robert Finlay) as defining an international consensus of scholars here. In particular, I wonder what parameters underlie such a verdict and what empirical material on whole "Eurasia" has been collected to come to such a conclusion.
If sweeping comments like that were made in a European context, they would be rightly castigated "Eurocentrism", so I don't hope we are coming out of the frying pan into the fire. Regards Gun Powder Ma 02:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Your statement is noted. I agree with you as well. Furthermore, this article seems to have heavly politically "liberal" statements and a general left wing view, especially at the last paragraph. 66.91.119.183 11:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree D prime 15:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The line about the population bottleneck occurring is not widely accepted in the scientific community. I think the line should begin with 'It is contended that...' or 'It is theorized that...' or something like that. I don't have any original sources to support my claim, but these articles do support me- Toba catastrophe theory and Population bottleneck. -- 64.131.213.198 07:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Attempt to clean it up ... http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=History_of_the_world&oldid=135404807'
Reversion by Nihil novi ( talk · contribs) ... http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=History_of_the_world&diff=135420102&oldid=135404807
The history of the world is human history (as opposed to prehistory [1]) that is marked throughout the globe by a gradual accretion of discoveries and inventions, as well as by quantum leaps — paradigm shifts, and revolutions — that comprise epochs in the material and spiritual evolution of humankind. After humans left the " Cradle of Humanity", humans had colonized nearly all the ice-free parts of the globe and developed in several regions various systems of writing and unique social systems.
World history, which examines history from a global perspective, looks to the invention of writing as the key component that gave rise to civilization, i.e., to permanent settled communities which fostered a growing diversity of trades. [2] This invention created the infrastructure for lasting, accurately transmitted memories and thus the capability for the diffusion and growth of knowledge. [2] There are various written accounts of languages developing. The early writing systems were not a sudden invention. They were rather based on ancient traditions of symbol systems that cannot be classified as writing proper, but have many characteristics strikingly reminiscent of writing, so that they may be described as proto-writing. The independent invention of writing at several sites on Earth allow various regions to claim to be a cradle of civilization. The various writing styles, in turn, had been made necessary in the wake of the Agricultural Revolution.
The scattered habitations, centered about life-sustaining bodies of water — rivers and lakes — coalesced over time into ever larger units, in parallel with the evolution of ever more efficient means of transport. These processes of coalescence, spurred by rivalries and conflicts between adjacent communities, gave rise over millenia to ever larger states, and then to superstates ( empires). The fall of the Roman Empire in Europe at the end of antiquity signalled the beginning of the Middle Ages.
In the mid-15th century, Johannes Gutenberg's invention of modern printing, employing movable type, revolutionized communication, helping end the Middle Ages and usher in modern times, the European Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution. By the 18th century, the accumulation of knowledge and technology, especially in Europe, had reached a critical mass that sparked into existence the Industrial Revolution. Over the quarter- millennium since, knowledge, technology, commerce, and — concomitantly with these — war have accelerated at a geometric rate, creating the opportunities and perils that now confront the human communities that together inhabit a planet of scarce resources.
J. D. Redding 23:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The global communications network? Isn't this an important advance? Why is it not even mentioned? The ability of the world to mass-communicate... the fact that I can pick up the phone and talk to someone on the other side of the planet, instantaneously, has got to be worthy of mentioning in a history of the world. It's changed the world forever and has arguably led to globalisation, which is mentioned. 212.139.167.196 22:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
the preposterous amount of links on the page it is not funny, it's hard to read for average readers.
("?") Markthemac 09:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with you, especially in the suggestion that this article is hard to read for 'average readers'. I found it quite legible and very informative. In addition, the number of links is quite right, really. Just Another Fat Guy 21:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
i don't mean the content i mean the layout, it's not working.
Markthemac
18:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
This article should be called History of Human Existence or History of Humans or something like that. To be so biased as to say that only history concerning human beings is relevant to the history of the world is simply rude. We violate the neutral point of view Wikipedia should hold by starting the History of the World at any time other than when the world was first formed. The world was around before we were and it could be around a lot longer. If we really are going to have a History of the World article than it needs to cover the histories of geology, animals, humans, and everything concerning what happens on the earth. I sincerely hope that we can not just say "Oh, oops, this basically means the history of human existence" in the beginning and say that works for the article to be something other than what it is. If we go by the reasoning of "History starts with writing" then we should take out everything up to a few thousand B.C. being that it is conjectural.-- 76.23.84.86 20:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Although I really must thank whomever put the disambiguation stuff at the top I still think that this article should be retitled as its title is inaccurate. The proper name would be something like Human History or History of Human Existence. -- 76.23.84.86 23:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Definitions and semantics... history means (to me) RECORDED events, which would (to me) necessarily indicate human events(animals don't record anything). Also "the world" indicates (to me) the realm of human experience (which differs from "the earth", the physical rock/dirt/water sphere humans, animals, and plants all inhabit)... meaning that (again... TO ME) "history of the world" is an entirely appropriate title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.97.80.100 ( talk) 09:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Disagree Even if someone was confused about the semantics involved, the introduction quickly and simply explains what this page is about, and where to go if you were more interested, for instance, in the geological life of the planet. Macduffman ( talk) 18:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Although the second half of this section seems good, the first half (about politics, basically) badly needed a rewrite and some addition. I did it, but it may not be up to snuff. I tried to provide an unbiased, balanced interpretation, but with something so broad and eventful there will certainly be other ones. Also, it needs some more addition - for instance, on the rise of East Asia, the turmoil in West Asia after the Osmanlis' downfall, and maybe some short blurbs on the progress of individual nations, at least the pivotal ones (Germany, America, Japan, the USSR, India, China, Israel). I also think more needs to be said on postcolonial Africa and Asia and Latin America during this era, but I'm no expert there. Brutannica 20:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to show a World War II map instead of a World War I one? WWII was more important, after all, and involved more of the world. Brutannica 05:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I pulled a lot of questionable content from recent history, and reworded much of the remainder to be more concise and neutral.
This is unreferenced and may be original. If not, it would be an interesting claim to add somewhere. It does not seem like a good introduction to the formation of the EU, since that implies causality, and that's an even stronger unreferenced claim which is potentially controversial or original.
These threats are not new, and do not need to be sensationalized in this way.
This seems to dwell excessively on global warming. The "Planetary Phase of Civilization" is a concept from a single working group, and a single global warming report does not really merit mentioning at the level of world history. The last sentence is overly broad and dramatic.
This is interesting and all, but the first half does not take place in the 20th Century, and so it doesn't seem to belong in that section. The second half seems to be speculative.
-- Beland 05:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
There is confusion between History of Earth and this article. If the present article is only about human societies in history, the title should reflect that. Why not move this to History of Humans or Human History? -- Antonio.sierra 18:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This paragraph said the eruption had global effects, "killing off as many as 59 million people". However, I couldn't find this figure of 59 million anywhere else. I have no idea where it comes from. It's an absurdly high number because no earlier than 1000 BCE did the human population reach 50 million souls. I replaced this obviously erroneous figure with the reliable information that can be found in the Toba catastrophe theory article. Zonder 02:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that 9/11 should be mentioned in thae article as it was a major event in world history. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' ( talk) 00:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, considering all that is involved in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF HUMANITY, 9/11 is a rather insignificant event. Guttenberg's printing press, the two World Wars, and The Internet are major events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.97.80.100 ( talk) 10:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
this being the article on the "history of the world", the 20th century is given much too much weight. Also, the ToC organisation is questionable: it begins with classical periodization, Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, but then breaks off and turns into a topical list. You would expect it to continue along the lines of Bronze Age, Iron Age, Classical Antiquity, Middle Ages, Early Modern period and finally sections on the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. dab (𒁳) 15:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I've dealt with your first concern... let me know if you think I've gone far enough or too far. The article does need a rewrite, although that many divisions is unnecessary and I don't think we should keep a strict chronology as it limits flow. It just needs a bit of reorganising and renaming of section titles. As a starter, Rise of Europe should be merged with Age of Discovery, removing all the opinions about why or how Europe "rose" - just state what happened, and leave why for another article. I'll do it unless somebody beats me to it... Corleonebrother ( talk) 21:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing the phrase "of necessity" in the sentence "Civilizations, of necessity, developed on the banks of rivers."
It just doesn't fit. It's not neutral, and looks like some kind of biased vandalism. Who are we to say that the civilizations they developed were absolutely necessary. If someone puts it back, I'm going to ask that person to cite a reference. 66.69.194.16 ( talk) 05:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I placed a {{ fact}} tag on the intro's claim that ".... war ... increasing at a geometric rate".
From the War article, we read that "The Human Security Report 2005 has documented a significant decline in the number and severity of armed conflicts since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s." So if there ever was a geometric increase, it seems to have been broken. Unless someone has documentation, I suggest we delete war from the intro. -- Alvestrand 21:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
not simply wars in general but the potential for their destructiveness, i.e. with new technology such as the atom bomb comes safeguards and dangers, or the internet, etc. 70.160.102.251 ( talk) 02:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Rodiggidy
I made a correction to the following statement, changing " greenhouse effect" to " global climate change":
The greenhouse effect is not a problem in and of itself, it is completely natural and vital to regulating the Earth's temperature such that it is not too cold or hot to support life. It is also not new in the 20th century. The important, problematic issue is actually human-caused global climate change. MarcusMaximus ( talk) 08:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I also added a "citation needed" to this statement about dwindling global resources.
It is not obvious that any particular global resources are about to run out, or are in danger of doing so in the near future. For that reason I believe a citation is in order, with some specific examples of dwindling resources and empirical numbers that can accurately project when they are going to run out. MarcusMaximus ( talk) 08:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The 21st century section reads like the movie trailer for the end of the world, focusing exclusively on highly negative or marginally neutral issues, like resource depletion, economic conflicts, wars, famines, and overall death and destruction. I removed some of the overly dramatic narration, but it needs a serious overhaul. Maybe a few of the positive developments of the 21st century should be added, considering that the world's overall standard of living is near its all time high, and economic and political freedom has never been as expansive throughout most of the world as it is now. It could start with the increased availability of technology to new countries and formerly impoverished populations, the information boom, the relatively healthy economy for the first 8 years of the century, promising new medical procedures to treat formerly untreatable diseases, etc. In addition, the idea stated in the first sentence about "increased environmental degradation" is debatable, as well as any claims of historically high levels of violence. MarcusMaximus ( talk) 04:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
A fair portion of the article is dedicated to prehistory and there have been some objections to this. I do think covering pre-history in this article is appropriate, as we discussed early in this article's creation at Talk:History_of_the_world/Archive_1#Prehistory.3F. See also our own article at History#History_and_prehistory. What we should perhaps think about is changing the lead to better reflect this. - SimonP ( talk) 13:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Fifelfoo ( talk) 04:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
After reading this section it struck me as very odd that our predictions about the 21st centuary are talked about the past tense, as if they have/will come true. In my opinion speculation about the future of the world does not belong in an article named "History of the world".
The following sentence seemed like a blatant case of NPOV and weasel words:
I reworded it in a more neutral fashion while trying to retain the meaning:
MarcusMaximus ( talk) 08:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This edit was reverted by the user
User:Nihil novi without any particular explanation or defense against my charges of
NPOV and
weasel words.
Specifically,
Unless you can address these issues, stop reverting my edits. MarcusMaximus ( talk) 06:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
"Your substituted version, on the other hand, suggests less urgency and more of a sense of business-as-usual."
That is precisely the point. Wikipedia is not an advocacy forum. Its purpose is to convey facts, and the reader decides if those facts require urgent action. If you want to convey factual information about the quantity of particular resources remaining and their projected exhaustion, that is fine, please do so. If you are merely going to state, in figurative terms, that we are "fast becoming lodged in a historic bottleneck", that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. How fast is fast? How significant is something before it becomes "historic"? How certain is this event to occur? And how is any of this conjecture relevant to an article about world history?
Petroleum has been projected to be exhausted "within a few decades" for many decades now, and there is more of it discovered all the time. If you are stating this as a fact, you will need a very good set of sources. On the other hand, a neutral mention of the fact that alternative sources of energy are growing in popularity and being researched would be a fine addition to this section.
By the way, you didn't address the weasel words issue. "Fast becoming apparent" to whom? MarcusMaximus ( talk) 08:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
That was a rhetorical question. The point is, you are not supposed to use that kind of phrasing. State facts. MarcusMaximus ( talk) 07:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
~~ ~~Just a pass-by viewer of the page here. I am aware this is not an advocacy board, but since the 20th and 21st century mention a number of known social ills, perhaps the 21st century should include a mention obesity as a rising health/environmental issue and link to the obesity page. I mean, this is the first time in human history where too much food rather than too little is a health problem on a global scale. source: http://www.nfb.ca/film/weight_of_the_world/ ~~ ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.104.104 ( talk) 19:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
This section appears to be nonsense and should be removed from the article. Jleonunez ( talk) 06:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Why does it talk about "Temple establishments" and the " New Kingdom of Egypt" and THEN have the next section title be "Early civilization", then talk about Cities, THEN say all of that is before "Ancient history", and then start talking about religion and civilization again?-- 98.114.243.75 ( talk) 00:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
To speak of the Age of Reason leading to the Scientific Revolution, and simultaneously to the Industrial Revolution, in the 19th century, is grossly inaccurate. The Age of Reason began in the 17th century; the Scientific Revolution — in the 16th, with Copernicus; and the Industrial Revolution, in the 18th century. Nihil novi ( talk) 13:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
From the "History of the World" article:
From the "Recorded History" article:
Anyone else find the above passages unclear and problematic? What exactly is the difference between the two?
During the Industrial Revolution, the world economy became reliant on coal as a fuel, as new methods of transport, such as railways and steamships, effectively shrank the world. Meanwhile, industrial pollution and environmental damage, present since the discovery of fire and the beginning of civilization, accelerated drastically.
This sentence suggests that there were no wood burnt on the earth until mankind discovers fire, kinda silly imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.230.33 ( talk) 06:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see what challenges the principle of neutrality here. The article doesn't say whether democracy has a positive or negative effect, just that it has an effect. Few reasonable people could deny this, I think. 86.7.216.182 ( talk) 22:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
True. It has an effect. Should be removed. -- J. D. Redding 03:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Article is written with a purely eurocentric POV of history. Most civilizations get secondplay and marginal treatment while others like the Chinese and African history get uncomfortably fitted into European history periods like the "middle ages", a concept alien to any culture outside Europe (and even then limited to the European parts of the Western Roman Empire), then anything outside Europe is threated as "provincial history". All before 1492 in this article is but a sideshow for what the eurocentrists consider the most important historical happening, the socalled "rise of Europe", that they consider starts from 1492 and culminates in the the XIX century. The sections that go from Middle ages to 1945 ares just Europe,Europe and more Europe.
A history of the world as a whole, and not just an Eurocentric Panegyric must put facts that affected the whole world or most of it like climate changes, and economic developments. Andres rojas22 ( talk) 02:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
John Atkinson Hobson? ... hmmm .... a POV [cited] /the authors seem related, seriously =-], do you know if they are?/... add counterviews if you included some of his writings, or similar ... it would seem to me to be necessary to do so. Source has a strong POV.
Anyways, History is history. The Imperial era of Chinese history last from 221 BC - AD 1912 ... static. Be nice to find references about east west interaction though ... I think you are talking about early modern period and maybe alittle before. Maybe? The mention of Mohammad should be in section (like the axial age) should be included, briefly ... and with other great figures of the timespan. The initial expansion of Islam wasn't as important as the second wave, JIMO. -- J. D. Redding 05:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
John M. Hobson its his son. Again read the book, it would challenge your conception, still dont understand what do you mean about the history of China being static and how do you base that claim.-- Andres rojas22 ( talk) 08:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Why are the pre-19th-century Age of Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution discussed under " 19th century"? Nihil novi ( talk) 07:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
footnote 129. The Age of Enlightenment has also been referred to as the Age of Reason. Historians also include the late 17th century, which is typically known as the Age of Reason or Age of Rationalism, as part of the Enlightenment; however, contemporary historians have considered the Age of Reason distinct to the ideas developed in the Enlightenment. The use of the term here includes both Ages under a single all-inclusive time-frame.
... this "lead to the Scientific Revolution" ... and ends as late as the beginning of the Napoleonic Wars (1804–15).
-- J. D. Redding 13:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I see the problem ... took out the "19th century" header. Better now? -- J. D. Redding 04:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC) [don't know what i was thinking ... or i wasn't thinking. Thanks. Corrected it now ... ]
I think it's good we have a timeline, like the one in the Antiquity section, but I think we should remove the top line (Bronze Age, Iron Age, Middle Ages). These three "ages" directly apply only to Europe and the Near East. Besides, it doesn't follow the chronology in the article, where Antiquity follows the Iron Age. 70.179.92.117 ( talk) 03:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The grouping of history into antiquity, middle ages, modern ages seems irrelevant and misleading. The lines in truth are not so clearly drawn, and calling all Europe after the Renaissance "Early Modern" likewise limits the experience of the 17th-20th centuries. Similarly by getting rid of these silly headings, we could eradicate accusations of "eurocentrism." The movement I think will be more powerful and true, if the chronology proceeds more fragmentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.52.161 ( talk) 13:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
J. D. Redding 04:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This isn't the only place where this confusion exists. You don't have civilization in the archaeological sense without cities, that's one of the key defining characteristics of a civilization. Dougweller ( talk) 07:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I found the start of this article remarkably abrupt, and not consistent with WP:LEAD. I checked the history, and lo and behold, the article used to have a good lead paragraph, which had been removed with the comment that the article should be a history of the world, not an article about the topic "the history of the world". This seemed a misguided argument, so I re-instated the lead paragraph. -- Slashme ( talk) 14:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I suppose it should be expected that such a broad overview would mischaracterize a lot of traditions. But it's surprising that such simple factual problems are glossed over as the founding dates for traditions.
Shouldn't this article be moved to Human History (now a redirect to this article)? This is a fantastic article, but it's not about the history of the Earth, or even of Life. It's about the history of humans, so that's where it should go. I would do this myself but a) I wanted to get some other opinions first, and b) Human History already exists as redirect to this article, so an admin is needed to delete that before this can be moved. Thoughts? ☻☻☻ Sithman VIII ! !☻☻☻ 08:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Human History ... Human history. Human History should be redirected to Recorded history, JIMO ... or {{ disambig}} it. -- J. D. Redding 04:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 19:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
History of the world → Human history –
Be helpful to get some points to work on ... -- J. D. Redding 07:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
This article is incomplete and may require expansion or cleanup. Please list specific bulleted points here. -- J. D. Redding 07:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC) [ps., The #History of Ideas inaccuracies above is noted]
The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please list specific bulleted points here. -- J. D. Redding 07:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Sumerian 26th c Adab.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
Oceania, Sub-Saharan Africa, Russia, and North America are completely absent from the pre-Modern history sections of the article. I think a couple of sentences about the early Polynesians, Inuit, etc, added somewhere, would be helpful. -- Yair rand ( talk) 00:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
User:Hadseys made an epic contribution to the article, but I reverted it because it was too long. The current article is 90KB (which maybe should be brought down to about 50KB) and their contribution was 800KB.
Judging solely from a quick skim of his content, there seems to be a lot of good stuff there, which could possibly be merged into the article (once it is properly sourced, of course).
It would greatly be appreciated if some of the editors of this article could look over User:Hadseys's contribution and incorporate as much as possible into the article, so all the hard work does not go to waste.
Thanks, Matt ( talk) 01:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)